Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement

All constituents of the Wikimedia movement (affiliates, groups, Wikimedia Foundation and individual contributors) are invited to express their support and commitment to the direction that is an outcome from phase 1 of the strategy process, or share their dissenting views.

Signatories in support of the direction commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good faith and to define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an agreement on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies that enable us to implement that future.

They pledge to consider the needs of the Wikimedia movement above their own, and to find the structures, processes, and resources for our movement that enable us to best move towards our common direction. Conversations in phase 2 will get more concrete than in phase 1 and will lead to decision making about the aforementioned issues.

The endorsement concludes phase 1 of the process, and we are currently drafting the next steps. The main goal of phase 2 will be to answer the question "How do we implement the strategic direction", which means identifying the resources needed for execution, and the activities it involves.

Please note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated, but will serve as the agreed upon groundwork for phase 2 conversations. In short, the endorsement means: “This is the right way for us all to move forward together. Let’s go!”

What it does not mean: Endorsing the strategic direction does not mean that the signing groups or individuals endorse all the steps that follow and the decisions that are being made in phase 2. How organizations and individuals use the outcomes of these conversations is up to them. Some may use it to inform programmatic or organizational strategy. Others may see it as a way to connect with the broader movement and invite others to contribute to Wikimedia. Some may not use it at all – and that’s okay!

Please sign the endorsement page with your username (make sure to be logged in), either on the section for organized groups or for individual contributors. To avoid edit conflicts, please edit your respective section and not the whole page.

You are endorsing the original English version of the strategic direction and the “What comes next” paragraph. The translations are used as a support to understand the context and meanings.

Use #wikimedia2030 on social media to celebrate and share your support with the world.

By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us.

We, the Wikimedia contributors, communities and organizations, will advance our world by collecting knowledge that fully represents human diversity, and by building the services and structures that enable others to do the same.

We will carry on our mission of developing content as we have done in the past, and we will go further.

Knowledge as a service: To serve our users, we will become a platform that serves open knowledge to the world across interfaces and communities. We will build tools for allies and partners to organize and exchange free knowledge beyond Wikimedia. Our infrastructure will enable us and others to collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge.

Knowledge equity: As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. We will welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities. We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge.

This is the section for all Wikimedia affiliates, organizations, committees and other groups that support the Wikimedia movement. As representative(s) of each group, please copy the following format and use it for your endorsement. To avoid edit conflicts, please edit your respective section ("Organized groups" or "Individual contributors") and not the whole page.

*Name of your group (incl. link to meta page/website); country and/or project that your group is most active in, if applicable; optionally, you can add a sentence of support in the language of preference. --~~~~ (signature)

By endorsing this strategic direction, we declare our intent to work together towards this future. We commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good faith and to define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an agreement, on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies that enable us to implement that future.

We pledge to consider the needs of our movement above our own, and to find the structures, processes, and resources for our movement that enable us to best move towards our common direction.

CIS-A2K; India. Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons... A2K team is willing to commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion. We endorse the Strategy Document with hopes that the divide between Global North and Global South will be bridged effectively. More power to Wikimedians --Lahariyaniyathi (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The board and executive director of Wikimedia Deutschland wholeheartedly and unanimously support the new Strategic Direction Tim Moritz 10:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (on behalf of the board of WMDE) and Abraham Taherivand (executive director) 17:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC). Update: In light of its fundamental nature, the general assembly was asked to approve the Direction and unanimously voted to support. --Tim Moritz 14:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC) (on behalf of WMDE)

Wikimedia UK supports and endorses the strategic direction. We look forward to working with you all to realise the aims and potential of our global movement. On behalf of the Board of Wikimedia UK, Josie Fraser, Chair 12:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia India supports and endorses the strategic direction. We look forward to working with you all to achieve the goals. On behalf of the Board of Wikimedia India, President - Rahuldeshmukh101 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge? endorses the strategic direction, and looks forward to working together for knowledge equity, and in service to free knowledge around the world. Anasuyas (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Siko (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A year ago, we embarked all together on a journey to define a strategic direction for the movement. Today, having a clear statement that is shared and endorsed by so many of us is exhilarating. So, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, we, as all our colleagues and friends before us, endorse the strategic direction. Schiste (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group; MediaWiki instances in the wider ecosystem; The group endorses the proposed strategy, since it reflects the need to provide tools for knowledge sharing beyond Wikipedia and sister projects and empowers people around the world to collect and develop content even more globally. --Mglaser (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Brazil endorses the strategic direction and looks forward to develop new projects and cooperate with the international movement to help to achieve the proposed goals! Rodrigo Padula (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This section is for individual contributors such as editors, curators, photographers and volunteer developers, across different languages and Wikimedia projects. Please copy the following format and use it for your endorsement. To avoid edit conflicts, please edit your respective section ("Organized groups" or "Individual contributors")

*--~~~~ (signature) (optionally: project, country or region that you are most active in, if applicable; short comment in your language of preference)

By endorsing this strategic direction, we declare our intent to work together towards this future. We commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good faith and to define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an agreement, on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies that enable us to implement that future.

We pledge to consider the needs of our movement above our own, and to find the structures, processes, and resources for our movement that enable us to best move towards our common direction.

Luisalvaz (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC) I am from Wikimedia Mexico / esWiki / Commons / Wikidata. Although there are some points in which I have some doubts, there was a lot of discussion and consensus around all points from people all around the world, so I endorse the 'strategy'.

Support. I have been following the strategy process loosely and took part in the strategy discussions at Wikimania. I'm glad we're deciding on a direction and moving forward. Deryck C. 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Look forward to working on implementation Jessamyn (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC) (also on Wikimedia Advisroy Board and #1lib1ref consultant)

Support The direction proposed, the frank assessment of our strengths and weaknesses, and the concrete inclusiveness to make a Wikipedia for the world, are all excellent and commendable. --aprabhala (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral really want to endorse the statement, in fact I whole heartedly agree it but here I am concerned that Please note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated, .. “This is the right way for us all to move forward together. Let’s go!”... sounds more like w:The Emperor's New Clothes I'm not convinced I'm seeing some magical new cloth. Gnangarra (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Since there are positive elements addressing access disparities I cannot oppose. Because there is nothing addressing the urgent need for self-critical humility and decisive action concerning open abuse of the "technology of manufacturing consensus" on very visible parts of the WMF projects (WM France, en.wiki), I cannot support this document as written. "Tell no lies, claim no easy victories." (Amilcar Cabral) SashiRolls (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutral I've read the proposal and found no great reason to disagree. The problem is that I don't see great reasons to agree either. In my humble opinion, we are trying to collect all knowledge and make it available to all the people. My greatest problem by far when editing is the lack of a definition of all the knowledge. Language communities can be very parochial: a local singer is more easily relevant than one from the other side of the river, not to say from another continent. And what is considered a proof of relevance in one place can be inexistent in another place (then, many things/people from there are irrelevant by default). Having seen that happen, I expected some general proposal of definitions and rules, and also of enforcement of such rules. None of that seems evident in the text. So I'm not willing to endorse it. B25es (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

(Changed from Oppose to Support to here. --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC))Sure, the direction may appear vague, "knowledge equity" is more human-centric and narrow, "knowledge as a service" is... I don't know what other words to put it, and the direction might not last very long. However, the direction did not say that it should last forever or something like that. Going to this direction can lead to better things, like newer tools and inclusion of other groups, such as authentic experts. (See newer comments below.) I'm uncertain whether the movement would concentrate on solely Wikipedia, but that is not what the movement should be about. Otherwise, why the movement as Wikipedia has advanced very far enough? --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Later further note, being one of the few non-WMF editors who (somewhat) endorse this direction is the sad part. As noted in the talk page, most of the endorsers are WMF staff (and WMF-affiliated volunteers), making others wary and suspicious about this process and the WMF itself. Attempts by WMF to move concerns to the subpage were IMHO poorly done and put a further divide between WMF and the non-WMF. I was close to switching back to "oppose" due to the votes done by the WMF members and concerns on the document raised, but I also noticed that most of the "oppose" side who proficiently write English well also edited either German, Ukrainian, or Russian Wikipedia. This may reinforce my earlier views that the whole Direction document is US-centric and would leave other non-English communities out. However, I would not switch sides yet as I've not seen yet more non-WMF editors from all communities voting on the Direction. The whole document speaks improvement and diversity, yet complaints about the document are inevitable. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving to Neutral. Right now, I'm no longer sure whether the direction will lead to better things. I now remember that I discussed word "knowledge" in the Drafting cycle, which I think has been the movement's theme. I'm now also convinced that "knowledge" is vague at best. I'm also convinced that the vagueness of this direction would allow openness of abuse. Also, "projects" is used twice, but the "Strategic direction" section doesn't say it. I also noticed that "beyond Wikimedia" was changed from "beyond Wikipedia". Therefore, I'm becoming more worried that the movement would become more Wikipedia-centric, which I have raised concerns about, regardless of what "beyond Wikimedia" means. Is this direction intended for mostly the encyclopedia project? Will this direction affect all communities? Will this direction be ineffective? How would this direction affect all non-encyclopedia projects whose purposes are different from Wikipedia's? Will more projects be created without the help and efforts of the movement? --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ziko, I restored it. It is abusive to modify or blank people's comments. Alsee (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Pine, George Ho, Ymblanter, Base: Ziko and I have responded with opposes. Merely declining to endorse is to let them make us invisible. If you want to oppose, go ahead and oppose. Alsee (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, it is the focus on "highly structured information" (linked data) that worries me because there are also other types of important content. I oppose the "redefinition" of the "community". I think that the movement should be open, as a collection of wiki communities, but this redefinition includes practically everyone on the planet. I am also afraid that the Direction will be used to support "oral traditions" (as in the texts leading to the Direction), and to define "oral traditions" as "reliable sources". Ziko (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as more editors that have expressed their concerns on this page which should be linked to here for reasons of clarity and fairness.I reject the process and its outcome so far because the concerns of the German-speaking community have not been considered, and there is no room for opposition at all. It is a case in point that opposing opinions are not tolerated in the vote. So, those who would rather abstain or deviate from the hitherto result of the process have been forced to put their signature on this page which itself has not been linked to from the "endorsement" page. Let me say, for one, that Wikipedia is not Facebook where you can only express whether you like something or not. Dissent is at the very heart of Wikipedia culture, and as long as the Wikimedia Foundation does not tolerate dissenting opinions in discussions about its future direction the whole process is nothing but a farce that indeed would fit totalitarian systems such as the former East Bloc countries or North Korea, but not a process in an open and civilised community. A vision for all editors cannot be imposed upon them, it has to be agreed by a healthy majority. This is why I ask you to, first, include this page of dissenting votes in the original voting page on this wiki, and, second, to change the process so as to make it truly democratic as it should be. Only a vote of equals can serve as a legitimate reason for such a paper.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as long as the new direction of the "movement" is tosilence critical voices, this resolution cannot possibly be a way forward --Cirdan (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose For visible dissent - against a document of unlimited hybris. I'll never endorse a document that doesn't leave room for opposition. --Mautpreller (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, do not agree with the document nor with the process. Bad process, bad document (at the edge of being dangerously bad), and should have been put up to RfC-equivalen process rather the to have solicited endorsements. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The strategic direction is couched in very nebulous terms, which can mean everything or nothing. I cannot endorse this.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment I feel that "Equity" and "Service" direction is more US-centric (if not human-centric), isn't it? I don't know how the endorsers will implement this direction. Agree that "Concerns" subpage should be linked if WMF allows it. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, knowledge is to not be treated as a "service" but a "value". Does "service" indicate dumbing or watering down something valuable and grand, like knowledge? If a reader doesn't care for knowledge, why serving a reader the knowledge? Also, I still think "knowledge equity" is too human-centric disguised as promoting "diversity". Is "human diversity" more important than "diversity" in a general sense? BTW, I see that the "Concerns" subpage is already linked at the Endorsement page, so that's good. --George Ho (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, it is there because I put it there. Please watch the page to help ensure it stays that way.--Cirdan (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Switching to the "endorsement" side soon. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) (Would no longer endorse it but not yet switching to "oppose". --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC))

I do not endorse the statement as well. There are many reasons. When I first was reading pre-Cycle 1 materials both as a new Meta-Wiki strategy coordinator and as an invitee to strategy track of Wikimedia Conference I saw a lot of vague highly philosophical gibberish. It was promised that in the end we will see something more solid, less vague. I do not see it. I realise it is strategy, I do not expect a script or a to do list as the outcome, just to be clear. But what I see is a document which does a worse job than the Vision statement and Wikipedia's 5 Pillars (extrapolated to wider Wikimedia) and a couple of other things we have (e.g. Founding principles). I cannot say that I oppose the document. I do not, it has points I agree with. But I know that some things in there are either naïve or untrue. Motives behind people contributing for one. My native community, Ukrainian, it is not fuelled by that almost divine mission of goodness on the way of free knowledge spread out. Fight for Ukrainian language place in the Internet, in society, and in the world. Ukrainian language's and Ukraine's. I cannot say if majority's but a considerable part of community's goal. Free knowledge is just a side-effect. In fact many would prefer a local Baidupedia if it existed. I am sure it is not the only community with similar motive present. I am sure it is not the sole "ulterior" motive we Wikimedia movement have in. That the "divine" reason is the common thing. Yes, OK. But the text makes one feel we are some angels dedicating our lives to free knowledge. We are not. Not all of us are anyway. Some of those who do not are though some of the most prominent contributors. I also see that some points do not resonate with an amount of community members' believes. Nor they do with some of WMF's actual actions and positions. Not always transparently stated, but widely known. I can give examples for both, mostly repeating other people's thoughts from other places, but it is too long a comment as it is.I was involved in the process around Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 and I didn't like it. My own performance was crappy, but the whole process even if one order of magnitude less than myself crappy was still. At the beginning it was all very raw, very hasty. The criteria by which languages to have coordinators were selected is an enigma. Reliance on discussion coordinators to do the same job as paid language coordinators was unfair and was not a best encouragement for them to appear. Insert more factors here. One of the main problems I saw when trying to be a discussion coordinator too was that communities just do not care. I know that some language coordinators had the same problem (while others on contrary had to deal with amount of work exceeding what one person should have been doing). This not caring is on the one hand probably a sign of lack of proactive encouragement from coordinators, on my part it is for sure. But it not completely this. People not caring is just a position of many. In Ukrainian Wikipedia we have a somewhat popular userbox "Do not chat idly, but write articles". Most Wikimedians know what they are doing. They know the problems of their segment of work. They know their own goals. Short and long term. I am pretty sure it is not just about individuals. I also was present (just observing) at a Belarusian conference on a strategy session they had. They were just mainly not ready to discuss strategy. With so much tactics to plan. The question is do they, the people who know what they are doing, need strategy? I doubt so. I am pretty sure that the majority of our wide community does not actually need this thing. I am not though talking that it is unneeded. It is an interesting thing to have, just another essay to link to on occasion (to justify a grant application for one). But local RfC on concrete issues, local RfCs on wider issues, or even local strategy discussions of our constituencies I think would be more useful. For instance is this document really useful for Wikinews? I don't think so. Not harmful, perhaps even not completely useless for instance recognising different forms of free knowledge resonates with WN, but no not really useful. I am pretty sure a Wikinews strategy direction would be more useful. Mediawiki. Translators of global Wikimedia stuff. Editors of Wikiproject Whatever. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Whatever. Wikiquote. Readers of Wikipedia from Wherever. This applies to any of them. Now, the process was we ask everyone equally, in reality those caring to respond, we build this thing. Now the entities like the one mentioned build their strategies within the frame. Isn't it an irony that this document talks about equity? I am pretty sure that the order should have been different. You need bricks to build a house. You do not make a house of clay and then chisel it to look as though made of bricks.And I agree with Pine. The document ended up arrogant(ish) and this phase of the process is not in wiki mood. Asking people to endorse something would actually get you win a ban for canvassing in many wikis. Having a two-side say is always the way Wikimedians chose.Disclaimer: Insert "IMHO" where it is not explicitly there; I am not trying to rally for opposition.--Base (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I particularly dislike we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. This false flag is abused so much, that it is harmful rather than constructive. I also dislike the overall bla-bla tone. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose since more than 13 years I write articles and launch WMF projects without having such "vision". I would like to continue in the same way. And I know we have a lot of problems and need solutions. First, we need such very concrete slutions and no global player visions, secondly I'm not sure if the discussion process of this document considered the real feeling and opinion of the huge community. -jkb- 00:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I do not agree to become a knowledge collecting slave of the all-mighty knowledge providing sect called Wikimedia movement. If this becomes the knowledge platform then we have created the next monopoly. --Varina (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose is not the kind of document that I expected. Already explained why in talk pages before ÀlexHinojo (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose there are some good points both in the process and final documents but there are more points I cannot endorse --Barcelona (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose A strategy direction should be tight and crunchy and focused. But this comes over as bland blancmange verbiage. More importantly, however worthy these aims are, the true strategic focus should be on the real existential survival issues for Wikimedia in the next years: (i) staying relevant to readers, and (ii) keeping life and vibrancy in the community. Jheald (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose We probably need a strategy document, but not this strategy document (though much of it might work as the strategy for a US chapter). I spelled out some of my concerns a few days ago. There are important strategic issues that we need to face as a community, but this document misses or flubs too many of them. WereSpielChequers (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The new draft superficially addresses the concerns I raised. However, it's plainly clear that the WMF has refused to learn from the blatant unforced errors it makes in the Third World and refuses to acknowledge the fact that not everyone is capable of contributing to Wikimedia projects constructively. Instead, they signal that they will double down instead ("we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege", "we will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from [...] contributing to free knowledge"), while not giving a rat's arse about the subsequent negative impact on the quality of the free knowledge we curate. I also disagree with the process this document was made. MER-C (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see what's gained by the document. It also ignores the core challenge of declining editorship. The Wikimedia foundation should focus on determining what works in gaining new editors and double down on what works instead of trying to win everyone. If a project to increase the number of women inside of Wikimedia works: "Great, increase the size of the project." but if it doesn't work, fund something else. The same goes for interacting with other "marganalized communities". ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, I find this 'strategy' to be made of platitudes and corporate jargon only, it's not related to the real needs of local Wikimedia communities, and the WMF has the ambitions to become supreme organisation of something that it cannot even specify. I see no "volunteer" or "volunteering" in this vision, there is also no one word about outflow of active and competent users (sometimes caused by WMF top down decisions, ignoring community decisions or more importantly ignoring the fact that Wikimedia projects are build by the bottom up activities and the WMF should only support local communities in the way they ask and not try to manage or govern them in any way). I also support what ChristianKI and MER-C wrote. I wanted to write here a long statement, but it would be just as pointless as this whole strategy thing. I see no value in this for Wikimedia projects communities and I think it's not even US-centric, but only WMF-centric (it's not suprise, in fact) and it'll be ok if it remain as a WMF PR statement – but by its ambiguity and vagueness, putting it in practice has too many dangerous possibilities. Wostr (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Unreasonable project from the start, corporate thinking, unnecessary political, impractical to name only a few reasons to opose. Kpjas (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Without content. Written with elite language. Targeted to the elite. Understandable for the elites. The world is changing now. People want a simple language. They want specific solutions. This is a corporate text. Wikipedia is not a corporation. Without such texts, the world would be better. The future needs specific. Regional solutions. For each version separately. This text is global and multicultural. Such solutions people reject. Solutions and money should be at national level. At the individual members of the movement. Pzdr. MOs810 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose this WMF pet project. The Foundation does not and cannot speak for a community as diffuse as this one. I oppose the corporate PR speak, I oppose the monopolistic ambition, and I oppose the hidden selling-out of our work to Silicon Valley through the Trojan horse of structured data. Any "statements" or "strategies" need to organically arise out of the Wikimedia community/ies. Not this. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 13:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I'll be frank: all this pompous corpo-jargon would be funny if it was not so ridiculous. "Breaking barriers, opening for lesser known languages bla-blah-blah". But if you need a real help to fight very well known cross-wiki vandal you need to formulate an extremely polite plea in perfect English, which would be refused, because a clerk of WMF knows better (but if you beg him for a week more he might deign to reconsider). "Focus our efforts on communities that have been left out by structures of power". Unless it is the power of another WMF clerk who has can override any Wiki-community if (s)he so wishes, because (s)he, of course, knows best. I would propose simpler mission statement: ma gavte la nata --Felis domestica (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I am not in favor of endorsing this text, for few reasons:

"Most of the content we have created is in the form of long-form encyclopedia articles and still images" and later "We must continue to write encyclopedia articles, develop software, donate money, curate data, remix artwork, or all of the above. " There is no attention for the kind of contribution people do on Wikisources, Wikidata or Wiktionaries. We did already much more than that.

"There are also opportunities for Wikimedia to fill a gap in education, by offering learning materials and communities" No mention of Wikibooks nor Wikiversity. I don't get what "offering communities" means.

"We need to challenge inequalities of access and contribution, whether their cause is social, political, or technical." I don't think my contribution will do that, and I do not think sharing knowledge and challenge inequalities is the same fight. I do both, but knowledge do not reduce inequalities. I feel this is a naive statement.

"The utility, global reach, and large audience of the Wikimedia platform give us legitimacy and credibility." Argumentum ad populum, it is not a good base for an argumentation.

"As a service to users, we need to build the platform for knowledge or, in jargon, provide knowledge as a service." Make no sense to me. I feel it is related to the possibilities to use knowledge in the economic market and I am not interested to defend this as a goal.

"Many of our efforts will benefit all users and projects equally." oooh so maybe there will be no more small projects and "at least 25% of Tech development will be dedicated to small projects". I do not think this sentence represent an exact vision of what the WMF plan to do.

"Our openness will ensure that our decisions are fair, that we are accountable to one another, and that we act in the public interest." Accountability is not that easy to set and structure. Openness is not enough, it sounds like a magic word here, and I don't buy it.

"We will focus on highly structured information to facilitate its exchange and reuse in multiple contexts." and in the following paragraph " We will extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on under-served communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations, and regions of the world, such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America." I don't think those people need structured information. For me, exchange and reuse is interesting but not a priority in regard of the needs of under-served communities.

My main concern is the lack of interest for the diversity of knowledge and the idea of knowledge as a service. Noé (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, The Wikipedia Zero program is a threat to net neutrality. — X-Javier✉[m'écrire] 15:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

at first, we don't need it - it worked until today without this. Second, the way it came to this point was at least "probelamtic". The WMF knew from the beginning, what would come out at the end. Even there was a call for participation, nearly everything what not wantes even before the call was ignored. We are not the Foundations Dumbasses. This is not what respect look like, this is not, how Democracy works. This is dictatorship. And third: everything here, the text, the ideas, are in form and meaning America centered. Once more: that the WMF is centred in the US was always a bad idea. "Der Weg zur Hölle ist gepflastert mit guten Vorsätzen." Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Lost voice I have concerns as where to place them I not to sure as it clearly on page says put them here, once you get here is put them there. My concern is the line on the endorsement page Please note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated, but will serve as the agreed upon groundwork for phase 2 conversations. In short, the endorsement means: “This is the right way for us all to move forward together. Let’s go!” (emphasis is as posted) I understand the intent to keep the process focused on further developing the strategy, but some how this feels as if its not possible to raise any concern as we move forward even if the process itself appears to be failing, On En:WP AGF says its not a suicide pact this heavy handed statement implies that the process is the only one by which we will sink or survive and look out anyone who may see an alternative. Hopefully we don't get in to the position of the Emperor walking down the mall without any clothes. Gnangarra (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Very beautiful and sweet text. What we are good fellows. But the text has nothing to do with reality and practice. And how to implement it - there is no possibility. --Wanderer777 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose When I read the draft text for Wikipedia in 2030, I am disturbed by the shere positive tone of voice. As if I am reading a leaflet of an advertising agency. The reality, that I experience in the four years since I have joined Wikipedia, is a bit rougher. Here, in The Netherlands and I presume also in other countries, there is a small minority within WP that argue/fight endlessly about minor details. Sometimes it looks like kindergarten. This infighting spoils the atmosphere within the organisation and discourages people to join the discussions.

... I agree with this editor who did not sign his comment and really is the Wikipedia community really objective or do they live up to their ideals. Eschoryii (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) (late entry)

Abstention I don't think this strategy will last for the years predicted and we will face a new one before 2020 is over. Why this hassle with top-heavy administration activities? The Foundation may produce texts without bothering the community. There's so much to do at the base. All in all, too much fuss about a simple PR text. Go on, but I will only benevolently watch ;-) --Sargoth (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Abstention, I too, find I cannot endorse this strategy, as I find it too vague and potentially open to abuse. It is like the horse designed by a committee which ended up a camel. I accept that it was apparently done in good faith, and it is not blatantly bad, so I do not oppose as much as abstain from support. It leaves me with an uneasy feeling that something is not right, without being able to pin down exactly what it is. The process of endorsement was also deeply flawed. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter (Southwood), and others: Note that declining to respond results in in being BANNED from participating in further discussions. Quote: necessary step in order to participate in phase 2 discussions. Alsee (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I consider Phase I sufficiently broken to have no incentive to participate in Phase II. I do not foresee any potential development of the situation which could lead me to endorse the outcome of Phase II.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And that actually identifies what I find most objectionable about the whole warped process. I refuse on principle to be coerced like this. Does anyone know who made this decision? I wonder when and where the principle of consensus was swept under the carpet as inconvenient. Thank you for pointing this out, I now know what it is that was bothering me about the process. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The WMF budgeted $2.5 million[3] for consultants and contractors etc for this strategy process. Rather than utilizing community members with experience in processing responses into a consensus summary, they took a conventional authoritarian-top-down approach. Items were cherry-picked to support the WMF's internal agendas, while more widely supported things were tossed in the trash. Alsee (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether your analysis is correct, but it does agree with the impression I am getting of the process. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 06:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment A link to this page should be made available on the Endorsement page. I have a concern with the wording, "We pledge to consider the needs of our movement above our own" and have made comment elsewhere, but will restate here, as more appropriate. While an altruistic notion, why does the ENDORSEMENT of a strategy necessitate considering "the needs of [a] movement above [one's] own"? Altruism is selfless concern for others, yet is an INDIVIDUAL act born out of love & freedom. It is sacrifice FOR a cause, not TO a cause. Merely <thinking out loud> about wording. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Two quotes come to mind: "A mass-movement always places the 'cause' above the individual person, and sacrifices the person to the interests of the movement. Thus it empties the person of all that is his own, takes him out of himself, casts him in a mold which endows him with the ideas and aspirations of the group rather than his own...." —Thomas Merton on mass-movements in Disputed Questions (1953) and the [albeit out of context] idea that "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

When we develop a vision for the future of WP, I would wish that it would not be an ecosystem ( I hate that word, it is so hip) for free information, but , as the first social media, a safe environment, in which people cooperate with dignity and respect towards the other, to make WP a better place. And if they don’t posess this capacity, maybe the organisation can provice lessons to be learned. Furtheron the draft text speaks about lowering the threshold in order to give people that live in remote places, with not to much education, a possiblity to join Wikipedia. This also is in harsh contrast with my experience with Wikipedia. You have to go through so much, detailed and complicated information about sources, copyright, linking etc.etc. that you need an university degree to be a proper Wikipedian. My plea would be to create a Wikipedia for dummies. Best regards.Hamnico (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal The community should propose an alternative, so that instead of simply asking for endorsements, the two can be compared. For example, instead of knowledge as a service, we could offer project improvement as a service, Education Program improvement recommendations as a service, and backlog sorting as a service. We can offer concrete recommendations for attracting new editors such as replacing or supplementing the pencil icon on the mobile view with the word "edit" in square brackets, autosave in javascript, a more sophisticated diff algorithm and wikitext delimiter pseudosectioning for reducing edit conflicts, and proposals for securing the permanent rights to edits via sliding-scale extrinsic rewards, as a service. 185.13.106.227 21:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Declining request for endorsement (concerns)

I have been thinking about the request for endorsement of this draft for some time.I am troubled by the first words of the lead sentence, which currently read "Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge..." I think that for Wikimedia to be "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge" (emphasis added) would be both unhealthy and unwise. Diversity fosters opportunities and resilience. Also, both WMF and the Wikimedia community have histories of organizational problems, shortcomings, and all-too-human frailties which lead me to question the wisdom of entrusting WMF and the Wikimedia community to be "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge." To me the draft has a tone of boldlness to the point of selfishness and vanity. I think that a measure of humility in regards to ourselves, and a measure of respect and generosity toward others' infrastructure, would be beneficial.I also would suggest that, while "infrastructure" may be a good word to describe a high-profile function of WMF and contributors of many kinds, "infrastructure" probably is not the first word that crosses into the minds of content creators and content consumers when thinking about the nature of Wikimedia. I think that "Infrastructure" may be a word that is better suited for a place that, while high-profile, is elsewhere in the document.I am troubled by the process of the request for endorsement, which in my opinion should instead be a request for comment requiring a community consensus or at least a simple majority in favor.I would need to spend multiple hours to review the draft in detail, but the above problems are sufficient for me to decline to endorse both the document and the ratification process in their current form.Regretfully,--Pine✉ 06:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And how do we encourage people to withdraw their endorsements on the finalized direction, Pine? --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not planning to campaign against the document, so I'm not going to reach out to people to encourage them to withdraw their endorsements.

I think that the strategy process started with good intentions, I understand the desire to articulate a strategy, and I'm glad that WMF made some meaningful efforts to have a bottom-up process. However, as I wrote above, I personally disagree with the document in its current form, and with the choice to request endorsements instead of submitting the document to an RfC or some kind of democratic process.

My dissatisfaction is unlikely to make any difference to those people who are responsible for the draft and for the ratification process (who, I would point out, are WMF appointees rather than community-elected representatives) and who have made clear that they are firm in their support of the current draft regardless of what anyone else thinks, so the situation is what it is. Unless someone wants to actively campaign against the document or the process, I think that those of us who are dissatisfied with the situation should register our dissatisfaction but continue to put one foot in front of the other, moving forward as we think best in consultation with others.

From my perspective it is disappointing that the good intentions of the process became weighed down with the problems that I mentioned. My guess is that if I walk through the document in detail that I will find elements that I like, but at this point no positive aspects could persuade me to endorse the document or ratification process as a whole.

Me too. I fully agree with what you said. I will not endorse the statement, as I explained on a multiple previous occasions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I share Pine's concerns. The future information landscape needs more diversity than that implied here, especially given Wikimedia projects' proven susceptibility to various forms of manipulation. I also share his concerns about the endorsement process: anyone developing a strategy on behalf of the movement should have confidence enough in their work to believe that the result will be accepted by community consensus in a free democratic process. If instead you only ask for Yes votes, this is liable to create the impression that, rather than speaking for the movement, you have your own agenda and are afraid the movement might disagree with it. --AndreasJN466 16:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I join concerns raised here, so most likely I will individually vote against the endorsement. As Pine, I praise the effort of the foundation to create emulation around strategy discussion within the movement. Also, for what I was able to participate in the process, that was interesting, informative, sometimes frustrating, more often joyful. Now for the global result endorsement, while as some stated in more details above, this is more a party politics stuff. So I would advice to make your decision to (not) respond with political considerations in mind. As far as I'm concerned, I will encourage any user group in which I am active to endorse the proposal, for pure promotional purposes, especially under-represented user groups. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've read the proposal and found no great reason to disagree. The problem is that I don't see great reasons to agree either. In my humble opinion, we are trying to collect all knowledge and make it available to all the people. My greatest problem by far when editing is the lack of a definition of all the knowledge. Language communities can be very parochial: a local singer is more easily relevant than one from the other side of the river, not to say from another continent. And what is considered a proof of relevance in one place can be inexistent in another place (then, many things/people from there are irrelevant by default). Having seen that happen, I expected some general proposal of definitions and rules, and also of enforcement of such rules. None of that seems evident in the text. So I'm not willing to endorse it. B25es (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)